"He had one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it that you may come across four or five times in life" (page 52).
I honestly look forward to this blog every week. I already finished my required three literary analysis blogs, so now I can just rant about my own personal thoughts about the book and speak my mind. I thoroughly enjoy stating my own opinion on things, so I don't object. Okay, thoughts so far.... Where to begin? Where to begin? Let's start with this new set-up of blogster. Um, I don't like it. I logged on to do my blogs and was very confused. It's nice, I guess. But it's all contemporary and makes me feel like I'm typing a blog for NASA or something. It's too futuresque for my taste. Not a fan.
Okay, okay. I should probably get to my ranting about the task at hand. But you have to admit: this new setup is weird. Back to writing my blog. I honestly kind of like this book. I really enjoy books that have been set in the 1920's. It really is interesting and even though it is set in this era, I believe that this book is timeless. Many people throughout time are caught up in material possessions. Honestly, I thought the era that I live in has been the most materialistic. We are constantly tuning out the world with our cell phones, facebooking, tweeting, and the like. We are living in the mindset where we truly care what others think of us. We dress a certain way, we speak a certain way, we act a certain way, etc. Why? Generally, to win the affections of others. Now, I'm being somewhat stereotypical of society because not everyone is like this, but for the most part, society is EXTREMELY materialistic. And it's only getting worse. Why is the world in so much debt? People want more. Houses are getting bigger, cars are getting nicer, and everything is getting more expensive. But nothing is stopping us. Absolutely nothing. This is so similar to the book. Tom and Daisy have an enormous home. Nick feels inadequate because his house is small, but Nick has what he needs. When Nick enters into the lives of Tom and Daisy, he loses sight of who he was. He used to care about what he needed. Now he cares about what he wants. Bleh. These people need to get over themselves and start looking at what truly matters in life. They might have nice things, but they're completely boring underneath their beautiful masks, their lifeless facades.
Monday, April 23, 2012
The Great Gatsby: Technique
"I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she'll be a fool- taht's the best thing a girl can be is a beautiful little fool" (page 21).
Technique is everywhere in this novel. For example, Fitzgerald has Nick speak with many sidenotes. This is to add more personality to Nick and to have him speak in a more personable level. Also, imagery is infused throughout. On page 9, Gatsby's mansion is described with imagery. "it was a factual imitation of some Hotel de Ville in Normandy, witha tower on one side, spanking new under a thin beard of raw ivy, and a marble smimming pool... " Fitzgerald uses imagery throughout the novel to explain the state of life the characters live in. Irony is also a technique that Fitzgerald uses. For example, on page 21, Fitzgerald scribes, "I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she'll be a fool- that's the best thing a girl can be i s a beautiful little fool." This is ironic because Daisy is upset that her daughter was born and Tom is no where to be found. The reader can tell that Daisy is upset, but she sarcastically says, "I'm glad it's a girl." Finally, Fitzgerald uses foreshadowing in this novel. On page 26 Nick says, "When I looked once more for Gatsby he had vanished, and I once again was alone in the unquiet darkness." This is foreshadowing that Gatsby will not always be with Nick and Nick will be left alone in a world of darkness and emptiness. I can honestly figure out where this story is going...... Mwahaha
Technique is everywhere in this novel. For example, Fitzgerald has Nick speak with many sidenotes. This is to add more personality to Nick and to have him speak in a more personable level. Also, imagery is infused throughout. On page 9, Gatsby's mansion is described with imagery. "it was a factual imitation of some Hotel de Ville in Normandy, witha tower on one side, spanking new under a thin beard of raw ivy, and a marble smimming pool... " Fitzgerald uses imagery throughout the novel to explain the state of life the characters live in. Irony is also a technique that Fitzgerald uses. For example, on page 21, Fitzgerald scribes, "I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she'll be a fool- that's the best thing a girl can be i s a beautiful little fool." This is ironic because Daisy is upset that her daughter was born and Tom is no where to be found. The reader can tell that Daisy is upset, but she sarcastically says, "I'm glad it's a girl." Finally, Fitzgerald uses foreshadowing in this novel. On page 26 Nick says, "When I looked once more for Gatsby he had vanished, and I once again was alone in the unquiet darkness." This is foreshadowing that Gatsby will not always be with Nick and Nick will be left alone in a world of darkness and emptiness. I can honestly figure out where this story is going...... Mwahaha
The Great Gatsby: Setting
"Their house was even more elaborate than I expected, a cheerful red and white Georgian Colonial mansion overlooking the bay." (page 11)
In this quote, the author is describing the setting of the story. However, the quote goes deeper than this. Yes, throughout the first chapters of the novel, Fitzgerald describes the setting of Nick's new town in great detail. However, the detail has much significance. For example, Nick describes his own house as "an eye-sore, but it was a small eye-sore and it had been overlooked..." (page 10). Nick later goes on to describe the Buchanon's home. I guess that it's not really a home; it's more like a mansion. These things are not just coincidental. There is reason behind it. Fitzgerald does this so the reader can be entranced by the status of the Buchanons. However, status is not everything. I'm getting the vibe that status is an important theme of the book. Everyone is so fascinated with their social status and how others view them. They care only about how much they spend to win others' affections. However, love does not come from money. Love comes from care. Themes in the book are paralleled by the settings in this story.
In this quote, the author is describing the setting of the story. However, the quote goes deeper than this. Yes, throughout the first chapters of the novel, Fitzgerald describes the setting of Nick's new town in great detail. However, the detail has much significance. For example, Nick describes his own house as "an eye-sore, but it was a small eye-sore and it had been overlooked..." (page 10). Nick later goes on to describe the Buchanon's home. I guess that it's not really a home; it's more like a mansion. These things are not just coincidental. There is reason behind it. Fitzgerald does this so the reader can be entranced by the status of the Buchanons. However, status is not everything. I'm getting the vibe that status is an important theme of the book. Everyone is so fascinated with their social status and how others view them. They care only about how much they spend to win others' affections. However, love does not come from money. Love comes from care. Themes in the book are paralleled by the settings in this story.
The Great Gatsby: Characterization
"Now he was a sturdy, straw haired man of thirty with a rather hard mouth and a supercilious manner." (page 11)
The above quote is a description of Tom Buchanon. It is direct characterization because Fitzgerald is stating exactly how Tom Buchanon is instead of allowing the reader to imply it. Characterization is all in this book. It's seriously everywhere. Perhaps this is because I am only supposed to read the first half of the book so far. In the beginnings of books, this is where characters are introduced. This allows the reader to figure out what is going on. However, I still feel incredibly immersed in the characterization of this novel. I also find it ironic how most of the characters are simply described explicitly. Characters such as Tom and Daisy are described to a T when it comes to who they are and their appearances. When it comes to Gatsby, the characterization is more implied. Yes, some of the characterization is described explicitly, but not all. I think that this is due to the characters and the stories themselves. For example, everyone in the story is kind of placed into the stereotype as to caring so much as to how they look. Yes, they are all easily distinguishable due to how they look, but their personalities don't really matter to each other. Everyone is so excessive with materialism that they have lost sight as to what truly matters. Gatsby, on the other hand, cares about material possessions, but he also shows sign as to caring about others' personalities. I realized this on page six when Nick said, "Only Gatsby, the man who gives his name to this book, was exempt from my reaction- Gatsby who represented everything for which I have an unaffected scorn." Gatsby is different, and this is evident through the way Fitzgerald characterizes him.
The above quote is a description of Tom Buchanon. It is direct characterization because Fitzgerald is stating exactly how Tom Buchanon is instead of allowing the reader to imply it. Characterization is all in this book. It's seriously everywhere. Perhaps this is because I am only supposed to read the first half of the book so far. In the beginnings of books, this is where characters are introduced. This allows the reader to figure out what is going on. However, I still feel incredibly immersed in the characterization of this novel. I also find it ironic how most of the characters are simply described explicitly. Characters such as Tom and Daisy are described to a T when it comes to who they are and their appearances. When it comes to Gatsby, the characterization is more implied. Yes, some of the characterization is described explicitly, but not all. I think that this is due to the characters and the stories themselves. For example, everyone in the story is kind of placed into the stereotype as to caring so much as to how they look. Yes, they are all easily distinguishable due to how they look, but their personalities don't really matter to each other. Everyone is so excessive with materialism that they have lost sight as to what truly matters. Gatsby, on the other hand, cares about material possessions, but he also shows sign as to caring about others' personalities. I realized this on page six when Nick said, "Only Gatsby, the man who gives his name to this book, was exempt from my reaction- Gatsby who represented everything for which I have an unaffected scorn." Gatsby is different, and this is evident through the way Fitzgerald characterizes him.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Frankenstein: Parallelism
"I left the room, and locking the door, made a solemn vow in my own heart neer to resume my labours; and then, with trembling steps, I sought my own apartment, I was alone...." (page 121).
MWA-HAHA! My last Frankenstein blog! I'm actually kind of sad about that. I really enjoyed this book. Nevertheless, I saved my last Frankenstein blog to be about my favorite topic of this book: parallelism. This is seriously the most epic thing ever if one thinks about the connections between Frankenstein to the creature. I blows my mind! Where to start? Where to start? Okay, I'll start with the quote above. When Frankenstein is making another creature, he is all alone in his laboratory. I find this parallel to the creature because the creature is constantly left all alone. I also find parallelism in the fact that the creature and Frankenstein both yearn to be loved. Frankenstein wants to marry Elizabeth and the creature wants someone of his own kind to be happy with. They both just want that one mate to be with forever. Both would not want anything more. When Victor sees the state that his father is in when his father is dying, Victor says, "Cursed, cursed be the fiend that brought misery on grey hairs, and doomed him to waste in wretchedness.... What then became of me? I know not; I lost sensation and chains and darkness were the only objects that pressed upon me" (page 147) Here, Victor is showing similar traits to the creature. Both want revenge on those who cause them misery. Both lose their own feelings in states of rage and are overcome by darkness when their lives don't go their way. On page 150, Victor says, "I pursued him; and for many months this has been my task." This links back to when the creature was angry with Victor. The creature pursued Victor and wanted revenge. Now, it has come full circle and Victor is pursuing the creature. Victor and the creature are very similar beings. I talked about more in a previous blog last week, but I know that there are more similarities than this. I am just trying to make a point.
Here's where thing become even more mind-blowing. Not only are the creature and Victor similar creatures, but Victor and Walton are as well. This just blows. My. Mind. Okay, get this: on page 158, Walton is writing to his "beloved sister." He writes to his sister often because they are incredibly close. This is similar to Victor and Elizabeth. On page 160, Walton is in deep mourning because he "lost his friend." Victor lost many people in his life, especially those he held closest to him. Victor and the creature are similar beings, but Walton is the same character as Victor. That is why Victor even tells his tale to Walton in the first place. Epic. It all comes full circle in one parallel universe.
MWA-HAHA! My last Frankenstein blog! I'm actually kind of sad about that. I really enjoyed this book. Nevertheless, I saved my last Frankenstein blog to be about my favorite topic of this book: parallelism. This is seriously the most epic thing ever if one thinks about the connections between Frankenstein to the creature. I blows my mind! Where to start? Where to start? Okay, I'll start with the quote above. When Frankenstein is making another creature, he is all alone in his laboratory. I find this parallel to the creature because the creature is constantly left all alone. I also find parallelism in the fact that the creature and Frankenstein both yearn to be loved. Frankenstein wants to marry Elizabeth and the creature wants someone of his own kind to be happy with. They both just want that one mate to be with forever. Both would not want anything more. When Victor sees the state that his father is in when his father is dying, Victor says, "Cursed, cursed be the fiend that brought misery on grey hairs, and doomed him to waste in wretchedness.... What then became of me? I know not; I lost sensation and chains and darkness were the only objects that pressed upon me" (page 147) Here, Victor is showing similar traits to the creature. Both want revenge on those who cause them misery. Both lose their own feelings in states of rage and are overcome by darkness when their lives don't go their way. On page 150, Victor says, "I pursued him; and for many months this has been my task." This links back to when the creature was angry with Victor. The creature pursued Victor and wanted revenge. Now, it has come full circle and Victor is pursuing the creature. Victor and the creature are very similar beings. I talked about more in a previous blog last week, but I know that there are more similarities than this. I am just trying to make a point.
Here's where thing become even more mind-blowing. Not only are the creature and Victor similar creatures, but Victor and Walton are as well. This just blows. My. Mind. Okay, get this: on page 158, Walton is writing to his "beloved sister." He writes to his sister often because they are incredibly close. This is similar to Victor and Elizabeth. On page 160, Walton is in deep mourning because he "lost his friend." Victor lost many people in his life, especially those he held closest to him. Victor and the creature are similar beings, but Walton is the same character as Victor. That is why Victor even tells his tale to Walton in the first place. Epic. It all comes full circle in one parallel universe.
Frankenstein: Theme
" 'Are you mad, my friend' said he; 'or whither does your senseless curiosity lead you? Would you also create for yourself and the world a demoniacal enemy? Peace, peace! learn my miseries, and do not eseek to increase your own." (page 156)
I'm starting to notice a trend here. Ever since the beginning of the story, Victor has been warning Walton about the dangers of knowledge. It can be a very harmful thing. Ever since the beginning of time, mankind has gotten smarter and smarter. The search for knowledge in the story (on Victor's behalf) was innocent. He wanted to find cures for illnesses. As the story went on, he became immersed in getting to know how to recreate human beings. This led to him creating a monster. The monster became immersed in learning as well, and found out the meanings of life. It cried when it read certain novels. It found numerous things about how humans work and how many things came to be. It learned about hatred and violence from others, and all these things added to the intensity of the monster. So: what is the meaning behind all of this information? What is Mary Shelley trying to say?
Personally, I believe that Mary Shelley sees knowledge as the monster. Her message is this: humans are figuring out how to do things that should not be known to man. Recreating humans is in God's hands, and this is what led to Victor's downfall. Knowing too much information is not always a good thing. That's why Victor did not even tell Walton of the hidden secrets because he didn't want to ruin Walton's life as well. We should just leave things alone and stop using knowledge to destroy mankind instead of improving our own lifestyles. Society is going downhill and we need to stop our minds before it's too late. But is this possible? How can we stop our minds? Our minds control our thoughts; this might be impossible.....
I'm starting to notice a trend here. Ever since the beginning of the story, Victor has been warning Walton about the dangers of knowledge. It can be a very harmful thing. Ever since the beginning of time, mankind has gotten smarter and smarter. The search for knowledge in the story (on Victor's behalf) was innocent. He wanted to find cures for illnesses. As the story went on, he became immersed in getting to know how to recreate human beings. This led to him creating a monster. The monster became immersed in learning as well, and found out the meanings of life. It cried when it read certain novels. It found numerous things about how humans work and how many things came to be. It learned about hatred and violence from others, and all these things added to the intensity of the monster. So: what is the meaning behind all of this information? What is Mary Shelley trying to say?
Personally, I believe that Mary Shelley sees knowledge as the monster. Her message is this: humans are figuring out how to do things that should not be known to man. Recreating humans is in God's hands, and this is what led to Victor's downfall. Knowing too much information is not always a good thing. That's why Victor did not even tell Walton of the hidden secrets because he didn't want to ruin Walton's life as well. We should just leave things alone and stop using knowledge to destroy mankind instead of improving our own lifestyles. Society is going downhill and we need to stop our minds before it's too late. But is this possible? How can we stop our minds? Our minds control our thoughts; this might be impossible.....
Frankenstein: Is Frankenstein innocent?
"I feel myself justified in desiring the death of my adversary... nor do I find it blameable. I created a being to assure in my power his happiness and well-being." (page 161).
I find it funny the way that one will tell a story. Whoever is telling the story will put his own spin on things to make the listener (or the reader) side with him. When the creature was telling the story, I almost felt as if i could hear an orchestra playing really sad music in the background. No one was there for him, no one loved him, he was all alone, etc. I heard it all. And all of this was true. But from Frankenstein's perspective, the creature was the devil. The creature was ruining his life. Frankenstein felt innocent, but so did the creature. Both of them felt justified in their actions for how they were wronged by the other. So, who is right here? Who is really innocent in this case? In Frankenstein's defense, he made the creature because he was curious about how to animate a human frame. The creature was of enormous stature and scared the bajeebies out of him, so he naturally ran away from the unknown. He loved his family and Elizabeth, and the creature destroyed everything. Aw, poor Frankenstein.
However, in the creature's defense, no one took care of it. It was left ALL alone. It had to celebrate its birthdays by itself. It was ugly and scary-looking and everyone hated it because they got to know it. Victor destroyed its only potential mate. How sad! However, the creature was also not justified in its actions. As bad as I felt for the creature, it should have never killed off Frankenstein's family or Elizabeth. I guess that's just my perspective though. I wish that everyone could just get along and "do unto others as they would like to be treated." However, I just don't think that the characters in this book would ever understand that concept.
I find it funny the way that one will tell a story. Whoever is telling the story will put his own spin on things to make the listener (or the reader) side with him. When the creature was telling the story, I almost felt as if i could hear an orchestra playing really sad music in the background. No one was there for him, no one loved him, he was all alone, etc. I heard it all. And all of this was true. But from Frankenstein's perspective, the creature was the devil. The creature was ruining his life. Frankenstein felt innocent, but so did the creature. Both of them felt justified in their actions for how they were wronged by the other. So, who is right here? Who is really innocent in this case? In Frankenstein's defense, he made the creature because he was curious about how to animate a human frame. The creature was of enormous stature and scared the bajeebies out of him, so he naturally ran away from the unknown. He loved his family and Elizabeth, and the creature destroyed everything. Aw, poor Frankenstein.
However, in the creature's defense, no one took care of it. It was left ALL alone. It had to celebrate its birthdays by itself. It was ugly and scary-looking and everyone hated it because they got to know it. Victor destroyed its only potential mate. How sad! However, the creature was also not justified in its actions. As bad as I felt for the creature, it should have never killed off Frankenstein's family or Elizabeth. I guess that's just my perspective though. I wish that everyone could just get along and "do unto others as they would like to be treated." However, I just don't think that the characters in this book would ever understand that concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)